MIWASP Nation

Contained in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention and the namesake of Fort McHenry, there is a report of a famous anecdotal conversation between a "Mrs. Powel" of Philadelphia and Benjamin Franklin. In response to Mrs. Powel's question as to the nature of the government produced by the Convention, Franklin is alleged to have replied, "A Republic – if you can keep it."

Based on the anecdotal reporting of friends and family regarding yesterday's "Tea parties", that republic is lost. I have not seen or heard of another situation in my lifetime in which so many two-digit IQs were running amok without adult supervision.

It isn't like we didn't have ample warning that the republic was in danger; it's just that many of the sources of alarm are in themselves suspect. The NRA, for example, has been crying "urban unrest threatens" for fifty years. Another such weak source is Lyndon LaRouche, whose October 10, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review included a dire assessment of the decline of the American condition even before the presidential election did the unthinkable to the MIWASPs – put them under the political rule of a non-white.

I'm sure that you recognize at least part of the acronym I here present, and it means what you think it does. But the "MI" part is new to you. It stands for "Male Ignorant", and I am deliberate in being gender-specific in my definition.

Much of the unrest in this land has been caused by the displacement, mostly in their own minds, of the American White Male as the dominant wolf of the pack. Life was so much easier for them when stereotypes would pass for fact, and no brain power had to be wasted assessing every situation for correctness. It was already absolutely defined. Women, kids, and minorities all "knew their places" and didn't challenge the loudly-professed and violently-protected superiority of the Male White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

So how does ignorance enter into the mix? Let's begin with "They let those dominated escape their control". How could any dominant group holding the kind of power that men in our society did up to about 1965 allow this? Simple. They were too ignorant to avoid getting into that situation of trying to control everything for their sole benefit in the first place.

It's my personal opinion that the assassination of John Kennedy cracked that entitled invincibility myth in the minds of the American WASP, and Lyndon Johnson's unchaining of the feared and despised non-white portion of our nation completed its destruction. Because LBJ was a Southern male WASP himself, he was deemed a traitor by his former peers.

I also believe that it is no coincidence that the rise of the current version of the Republican Party is rooted in the rubble of the myth of the MIWASP, for there was no way that the Democratic Party would ever again be deemed trustworthy after performing such a vile and dastardly act as the American Dolchstoßlegende. How DARE American politicians stab the victors of Normandy and Iwo Jima in the back by giving equal rights and political power to obvious inferiors! It was just this separation between the middle-class workers and the government that gave them prosperity through legal rights to organize that the Party of Plutocracy needed to make their move.

The Gilded Age of our history was the Nirvana — nay, the Valhalla! — of the wealthy class. Northern money had recently gained dominance over their former peers and rivals of the South once the basis of Southern economic, and thus political, power was destroyed. Without unpaid slave labor, the South had no power, and Northern money saw to it that Southern faces were rubbed in the muck of that fact every chance they got.

Unable to fight back, the South turned to weaker groups to extract a measure of revenge and to reclaim their delusions of superiority. They again used religion to justify their excesses just as they had prior to their military defeat, and no woman, child, or non-white was ever going to look down upon them again. We'll ignore for now the exclusion of the Northern wealthy class from this list.

Such hubris wasn't the exclusive property of the South, however. The victorious Northern interests began to consider themselves invincible, and practiced similar kinds of Social Darwinism upon the society-at-large as well as among themselves. For example, Thomas Edison used the economic power stemming from the patents awarded for the creation of the light bulb to crush any competition he couldn't purchase through the selective application of the law and the courts. His cutthroat legal strategies were adopted by the railroad and steel magnates, whose large workforces emulated the large slave populations of the South and inspired similar control practices.

These titans of industry were further empowered when awarded the patents and properties of the German aniline dye industry by the Versailles Treaty, which they then abused to create the first truly consumer-driven society during the 1920s. They became SO rich they HAD to be smart, and nothing they did was seen as inappropriate or unwise. "Anything goes" went the saying, and did — until it didn't anymore.

The Great Depression was the unchaining of the unwashed masses from wage slavery and dominance by wealth. Because FDR was of that class himself, he was deemed a traitor by his former peers. Regaining that lost power and glory became the goal of wealth in this nation, and their efforts didn't take long to make that fact known. If it weren't for Marine General Smedley Butler, a two-time Medal of Honor winner who exposed a coup attempt organized by some of the beneficiaries of the lucrative aniline dye patent awards, it is likely that the United States would have followed a path similar to that of Germany at that same time. And just as George W. Bush attempted to establish during his felonious reign, the rights and liberties of the American people would have been curtailed in the pursuit of reclaiming power and prestige for the wealthy through the destruction of world communism and opening up Russia for economic exploitation by force.

Had this actually been achieved (look up Operation Bagration if you want to know the likely outcome of that effort), there is no reason to believe that this would have been the end of it. As there is no honor among thieves, the victors would have fallen out amongst themselves and created a new struggle for domination (as they did in historic Cold War reality). Our rights would have remained as unrealized as those granted by the early Soviet Constitution (which was itself modeled after our own) as we marched off for yet another war in the service of Gen. Butler's "Wall Street capitalist racketeers".

Since the Republican Party engineered the South's Rising Again using MIWASP economic and racial hatred as the prime mover, nothing good for most of the American people has come from the effort. The Executive Intelligence Review article hints at the truth of why this is so: "Many people are enraged at what the government has done, but being mad is not enough, as the oligarchs are quite skilled at channeling popular rage into dead ends."

Hence the "tea parties". Stirring up political, economic, racial, and gender animosities for private gain and power enhancement is a recipe for tyranny, and not the sort that the tea baggers believe they are preventing with their juvenile expressions of displeasure. It isn't without reason that some of us see the parallels with the German street gangs who later led their nation into disaster with their deadly foolishness. In both cases, wealthy interests are using those who shower after they work to perform their evil deeds, taking by force that which they cannot win by persuasion. The rules are for fools, feel They Who Deserve To Rule. The end — giving them control of everything — would justify the means, and the rest of us can just like it!

Because nothing resembling the outrage expressed by the tea baggers — not the repeated violation of Constitutional liberties, not the illegal acts openly flaunted by the Bush administration, not the donation of the American economy to the wealthy class by the Obama administration, not the impoverishment of the middle class — can get the American people off their sorry asses and into the streets or into the voting booths, I fear that at the very least the American people don't care about our traditional American values anymore. I have come to believe that at most the American people are OK with becoming stupid fascist bullies, the rabid corporatist dogs of eternal war that the world will have to put down before they can again know a semblance of peace. I cannot conclude otherwise, for over the time that I have attempted through my meager blogging efforts to awaken awareness of the problem in people, the nation has rapidly gone in the opposite direction. No amount of persuasion seems to affect the outcome, so I have to conclude that destroying the nation is what We, the People of the United States want. If we could destroy Vietnamese villages thinking we were saving them, could we not also think and do so regarding our own nation?

I guess it's better than admitting we were wrong about so many things, and winning means never having to say you're sorry.

You might also like

Another childish name calling hate filled racist rant by a leftist. It’s sad that this is all you got.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

I don’t know what’s going on, Doug. It’s the second article within a couple of days when a white male is under attack. A trend of some kind or just a sign of the times.

Political correctness is having a field day.

Doug Hunter

Ah well, better to spend my time on other things. This line of propaganda won’t go away because it works. This nation is far and away a majority of minorities and if you can bind them all together with hatred against a common enemy that is power.

In the last election these guys got 90+% of the black vote and made good inroads in other poor oppressed victim groups. That’s not a sign of diversity or freedom, that’s a sign of fear and groupthink which this tool is trying (successfully) to engender.

It’ll run it’s course in due time. Then we’ll be, much like Ruvy and Jonathan, arguing wich victim group has the most cred.

What happened to the good old American spirit, we’re all in this together? You’re right in that this whole idea of “victimization” has gone too far. We’re no longer a nation but much like spoiled brats fighting for the toy.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

I think you’re making some good points, there, Realist. I’m not certain to what extent you want to go with this “MI” acronym. Kind of broad, I’d say. Perhaps an oversimplification. Certainly not a sufficient cause of our present condition.

But I’ll have to give it a closer read. We’ll talk later.

http://www.joannehuspek.wordpress.com Joanne Huspek

Makes me wonder about all the other races and genders who showed up at the tea parties. These are interesting theories, but grassroots unrest transcends the so called “white” male.

Coming into work today, I heard two local black news commentators on WDTK dressing down Obama like you wouldn’t believe. If those words had come out of a “white” male’s mouth, liberals would be all over it calling them racists.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

grassroots unrest transcends the so called “white” male.

This is stereotyping, Joanne, just like any other.

Clavos

grassroots unrest transcends the so called “white” male.

This is stereotyping, Joanne, just like any other.

WTF???

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

WTF. Is that a code for what I think it is? Well, let me explain then. It cuts a certain picture of “white male,” doesn’t it? Joe Six-Pack, Football Joe, Joe the Plumber, whatever. I take all those as stereotypes, don’t you?

It wasn’t Joanne who first used the term in this thread; in fact, among others, you used it before she did (#2).

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Right, and I was being facetious – trying to see, perhaps, how far some people are willing to take it. But Joanne does seem to use it with a straight face when she suggests that so-called “grass movement” (or political involvement) are above the comprehension or the interest of “white males.” And this I view as stereotyping.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Well, perhaps there’s another meaning there as well, as I look it at it now – to transcend, meaning “to be bigger than,” “to include and go beyond,” etc.
It’s still a rather unclear statement TO ME, as it stands, so perhaps she’ll be kind enough to clarify it later.

M a rk

But Joanne does seem to use it with a straight face when she suggests that so-called “grass movement” (or political involvement) are above the comprehension or the interest of “white males.” And this I view as stereotyping.

That’s not how I read her comment, Rog. What I got out of it was that more than just white males participate in grassroots movements.

M a rk

(note to self: update comments before posting.)

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Read my #12 where I make that concession, unless you just have a vested interest in being contrary. Still, I have questions, if that’s OK with you.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Besides, if you’re a good Marxist as you present yourself to be, you should be familiar with Heidegger and Sartre as well: I have a right to question what may possibly be “inauthentic speech.”

Irene Wagner

Why don’t someone just ask Joanne Huspek to clarify #6?

Sorry, I’d do it myself, but I’m too busy right now–taking care of a MIWASP’s :
Masculine Intelligent White and Sensitive Protestant.

Irene Wagner

A MIWASP’s what, you may ask.
It was a typo.

Baronius

transcends the white male: “transcend” in the sense of extending beyond the white male, into other race/sex combinations. Not “transcend” in the sense of existing beyond the capacity of the white male to understand.

M ark

(I fear that bourgeois ideology has rendered me a hopeless individualist – hardly a good Marxist.)

Joanne’s comment seemed pretty clear to me given its context.

Arch Conservative

“Another childish name calling hate filled racist rant by a leftist. It’s sad that this is all you got.”

Did you catch Jeneanne Garofalo’s little rant on Keith Olbermann Doug? She claimed the tea parties were attended by racist rednecks who can’t stand to see a black man in the white house.

I guess the 67 people watching Olbermann’s show must have loved hearing that but every else would be appalled if they even took [her] seriously [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]!

Clavos

A MIWASP’s what, you may ask.
It was a typo.

Hmm.

Not a Freudian slip?

:>)

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Well, there are those two meanings, Baronius; and I do thank you for having been the only one thus far (except for you, thank goodness) to have pointed this out. Hence, my the intent of my original comment to hold Joanne’s comment “in suspense.”

I am kind of surprised, however, why so many commenters here seem this intent on shoving their preferred meanings down my throat. I didn’t know that we were all aiming to establish on this here BC side any kind of dictatorship as regards to thinking. Tell me it ain’t so.

PS: Joanne’s comment may well be perfectly harmless and innocuous. I still have a right to dig deeper if I so choose. So I think it would be more prudent not to evaluate my remarks in the most simplistic way possible and then fault them for my lack of understanding (especially when the commenter is not exactly aware of my intention(s). I should say, and this is on the record, that one-on-one, person-to-person dialogue is more important to me than the absolute truth or untruth of any given statement. The latter issue may eventually be resolved, but not before a certain level of communication between the participants is established. But of course, if one doesn’t subscribe to this policy and is intent instead on the truth value itself, irrespective of the value of the dialogue itself, that I’m afraid I can’t help. To each his own, I guess.

Clavos

Joanne’s comment seemed pretty clear to me given its context.

Moi aussi.

Which was the reason for my #8.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Then you’re a simpleton for thinking I must subscribe to your preferred meanings and sense of clarity.

It wasn’t an accusation but an open question. Joanne has a perfect right to respond, and I would very much welcome her to do so. In part, the question – and I repeat, the question – was put in the first place in light of some of her past writings. And no, I don’t buy into the idea that we’re all authentic speakers. If anything, I suspect that precisely the opposite is the case.

And BTW, I really these kinds of interventions don’t do much good IMO to foster communication between people – in this case, between myself and Joanne – but have the effect, rather, of making the situation more antagonistic to the point that all discussion breaks down. I’m not saying that such was your intention; nonetheless, I’m just pointing this out so you might consider it in the future.

No hard feelings,

Roger

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

To reduce it to a one-liner, Mark, in case you fail to understand my drift:

I COULD give Joanne’s remark a sympathetic reading. For reasons of my own – which you may or may not question, and that’s beside the point really – I choose not to!

Baronius

But in actual practice, Roger, nearly every attempt you’ve made to tease out a possible contrary meaning in a comment has ended badly. There’s been no breakthrough or improvement in communication. Frequently, people don’t even respond because they’re not sure how you’re reading their comments. (It took me a while to figure out how you interpreted “transcend”.) When you consider this thread, more than half of the comments have been confused responses to your query. That’s not communication; it’s the opposite.

M ark

No problem, Rog. And I’ll feel free to choose to give you my interpretation when I think that you’ve misread something.

zingzing

doug hunter: “Another childish name calling hate filled racist rant by a leftist. It’s sad that this is all you got.”

you’re kidding, must be. all the left has got left?

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Baronius,

Whatever the case, and it’s your opinion, that’s my strategy, and your or anybody else’s interference only obfuscates the issue.

As a matter of fact, you are wrong. If you check out the thread on recent Khan’s article, you’ll see that this is not the case. And that it was only as a result of my persistent questioning, despite the usual “well-meaning” opposition, that Khan owned up (as it were) and provided additional information.

But whatever, I don’t really understand either the point of or the motivation behind your remark, other than perhaps you’re just eager to jump on the bandwagon.

Whatever suits you.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Mark,

It works both ways, Mark, and I for one have no problem with that – so long as both you and I realize that no one has a monopoly on meanings. Fair enough?

Besides, I wish you would really get away from the simplistic model whereby all uses of language are descriptive. It is, really, a tool box, and the uses of it are multifarious – depending of course on the intention of the speaker. So it would help a great deal if you were somewhat mindful of that rather than try to reduce the seeming controversy to the most simple of terms.

Peace

Roger

Clavos

Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate…

zingzing

love, love, love…

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

I you want to keep on perpetuating the impression of being a buffoon – and it’s beyond me why an intelligent person such as you would care to do that – be my guest.

I have vivid memories of America living under the rule of the WASPS, ignorant or otherwise, and their gradual downfall.

Unfortunately, what replaced the WASPS was a pathetic mellow merde “guilty liberalism” that allowed plutocrats in America to still steal and steal America’s patrimony from right out of their pockets. Obama and Bush are identical in this respect – both either allowed or are allowing plutocrats to impoverish Americans – more quickly under the Blessed of Hussein, but nevertheless the game remains the same.

And apparently, even blacks in America are beginning to wake up to the piece of shit they stuck in the White House. The tragedy is that it does not matter whether Americans had elected McCain or Obama – both are shit and both are doing the same things under different labels.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

This is just pure venom, Ruvy, “the piece of shit they stuck in the White House.” It’s below the level of any intelligent discussion.

I’m sorry to hear that you’re being so activated by your emotion.

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

Roger, I calls it as I sees it. Obama is a piece of shit, and nothing better. Bush was also a piece of shit – I don’t want you to get the wrong idea – and so would McCain have been.

All you have to govern your once great country is second rate garbage. Roger, at this point, you’d be better off in Poland – people there aren’t being kicked out of their homes as the government prepares a dictatorship for you to live under.

The US of A is a fuckin’ joke. And it ain’t funny, Roger. It’s tragic.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

We sow what we reap.

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

ummmm, we do???

sorry! lol

Clavos

Heh…

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

Roger,

We sow what we reap.

You really should stop sucking on your toes so you can enjoy your wine. If you want to wag you self-righteousness at me, at least do it right.

“We reap what we sow.”

Of course tailors have different rules to live by. Because they generally don’t know any better, they tend to sew what they reap. Pulling the stitches out of Wheaties or kashe-varnishkes can be very time consuming.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Whatever, Ruvy. I don’t edit my comments.

But yours, on the nature of “Obama is a piece of shit, and nothing better,” is not a matter of simple editing but as far as I’m concerned, expression of your soul. And I’m not an Obama lover, so don’t misunderstand me.

So stay well. I really can’t relate to you any longer.

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

2 down

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

The Princess has spoken. I suggest she minds her own business. Or would you rather call me again and apologize?

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Or shall I reveal the contents of email communications to some such effect?

Just keep on pushing.

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

Actually Roger, when I called you for help with my article, it was very tiring. Since you never let a person talk or really care at all what they’re saying. It’s not much pleasure having to actually ask someone to be allowed a chance to speak so many times.

But, still, you sounded like a nice person. Not at all like one that would do what you are trying to do now.

Christopher said it best when he said your transmit works fine but

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

…your receive doesn’t work so well.

I can’t imagine Blocritics will put up with threatening posters because they remark on your comments.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

I am not about to do any of that. Just don’t like snotty comments from anyone. If you keep your distance, so will I.

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

There is nothing in any e-mail that I wouldn’t want seen by anyone. That your making threats and insinuations is scary. I think you have a real problem.

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

I have a right to say anything I want, just as you do, as long as it accords with the policy. If you don’t like it you can ignore it.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Other BC members are not subject of this conversation. That’s strictly between you and me, so don’t be hiding behind the crowd.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

You do, and so do I.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Question is, why do you want to resume the argument? I would think the reasonable thing would be to just let go. Never mind me, and I’ll do likewise.

http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

Roger,

The rest of us became ‘subject to this conversation’ the moment you threatened to reveal private communications on a public website.

I would suggest you take a few minutes to reacquaint yourself with the BC comments policy. You have arguably crossed or come close to the line on several occasions recently, and there is a limit to the tolerance and patience of Chris and myself.

Cool it. Please.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Doc,

A question. What’s inappropriate about my making public whatever I wish. Number one, I already stated that I wouldn’t, And how would that violate BC policy? If anything, it would be a violation of my moral code, nothing else.

Besides, I could alert you to an instance or two where precisely this very thing has been done, and by none other than your own staff. Again, I won’t because it’s water under the bridge. Yet, neither you nor Chris have chosen to intervene on my behalf when the shoe was on the other foot.

So perhaps you can enlighten me about what aspects of BC comments policy I was in danger of violating.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Forget it. I’ll just ignore whatever comes out of her mouth.

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

Realist,

I loved your analysis in this article (and your acronym). It had a lot of things I hadn’t thought about, like Thomas Edison and his patent. But also I have never heard of the plot to overthrow the Whitehouse. Aside from the actual plot, some of the things Butler said are revealing:

August 21, 1931, Butler spoke to an American Legion convention in New Britain CT. Looking back, he reflected on his career. His remarks stunned the audience. Few papers dared report even part of the speech:

“I spent 33 years…being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism….

“I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City [Bank] boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street….

“In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested….I had…a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions….I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents…” (p 118).

http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

So, which Tea Party did you attend, Realist? Oh wait, you’re just repeating the talking points from DU and Huffpo or whatever moronic leftist site you get your delusional BS from.

I was at a Tea Party. The crowd was young, more female than male, clearly well educated and professional in character. And the keynote speaker at the event was a black man.

Sure doesn’t sound like anything you were talking about. Perhaps where you have your head stuffed it’s too dark and foetid for you to observe what’s really going on.

Dave

http://blogcritics.org/writer/realist Realist

Dave! I’ve missed you and your poor reading skills!

For your re-education: “Based on the anecdotal reporting of friends and family regarding yesterday’s ‘Tea parties'”, they were observing said tribal gatherings in Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario CA. I had to work and support the economic recovery of your deflated portfolio or I would have gone myself. Now go back to sleep and let Roger continue arguing with everyone.

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

I’m not sure where anyone gets that Realist said it’s all white males at tea parties?

I just reread again and I’m pretty sure I didn’t read anything like that.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

“Now go back to sleep and let Roger continue arguing with everyone.”

Don’t be obnoxious now. If you have something to say to me personally, do so!

http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

Not again, saith the poor bowl of petunias.

Dan(Miller)

http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

Realist, I give your articles as close a reading as they deserve. Given where your ‘anecdotal’ reports came from I’m not surprised that the character of the tea parties there was different. As we’ve discussed before, that part of California is dominated by JBS wackos and nativist nuts. It’s hardly a representative sampling on which to judge a movement.

Dave

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

I just had it for breakfast, only a few petals, mind you, with cereal.

Delicious!

bliffle

Although Cindy and Rogers little Lovers Spats may seem tedious and irrelevant to us onlookers, I’m sure that they enjoy them. I think it was La Rochefoucauld who said “lovers are never bored in their own company because the conversation is always about themselves”.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

You may have something there, Bliffle.

It’s an unconsummated love affair, in fear of petering out. So we do our best, I guess, to keep it from becoming extinguished.

Human folly!

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

So what do Roger’s arguments with everyone else in sight mean then?

(Sometimes men really piss me off, not usually you though bliffle, I guess nobody’s perfect…)

Oh well, my name is mentioned again, if only in passing. Good to know I’m not all forgotten.

So now poor ole Bliffle gets the brunt for speaking his mind.

The plot thickens, I say.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Why don’t you just admit it that you love me and get it over with?

http://blogcritics.org/writer/realist Realist

Dave: Your tea party sounds more like a frat pledge rush than a gathering of the politically angry. Maybe you should have gone to one of these rallies, where the REEL PAY TREE YACHTS (spelling courtesy of Texas’ No Child Left Edjimikated program) gathered.

In fact they sound more like greedy power-hungry wackos. I wonder how much influence father Fred had on his two boys. Oh wait…look what CBS says..you know CBS? Is that owned by George Sorros too?

Apparently the two upstanding fighters for liberty have spent their lives trying to kill each other to take power of the fortunes Fred left them.

Imagine Dave, being so absolutely depraved by greed and power that even with multiple billions of bucks, you’d spend your life trying to destroy your only brother to get ahead of him in the power game.

Bill Koch says Koch Industries has made millions by stealing oil from the government.

Koch says that Koch Industries engaged in “(o)rganized crime. And management driven from the top down.”

“It was – was my family company. I was out of it,” he says. “But that’s what appalled me so much… I did not want my family, my legacy, my father’s legacy to be based upon organized crime.”

So, CBS queries, is Bill telling the truth or is he lying to ruin his brother?

Cindy, my least favorite part of the acronym was the “W.” I’m not going to put up with being called “white” anymore. Dead people are white. A white woman is someone who is too ashamed of her pastiness to show up at the beach. The MIandASP left me kind of cold, too.

What did YOU like about it?

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Rabid feminism and hatred of life, that’s what.

Irene Wagner

Roger, I believe the traditional exclamation at the end of Lent isn’t “Lent is over.”
It’s “Alleluia, He is risen, indeed.”

Oh my. How White [sic] Anglo Saxon Protestant of me.

Irene Wagner

Now, now, Roger. Be nice.
Cindy can answer for herself, is she’d like to.

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

So stay well. I really can’t relate to you any longer.

Oh well. Poor Roger lost his sense of humor.

Roger, Obama is still just a piece of shit. That’s not a matter of my soul talking. That is just simple truth. You guys are stuck with second-raters all around, starting with Obama and working one’s way down. I honestly feel sorry for you Americans – you deserve better.

But history is happening to you. And history is not nice.

zingzing

you should know.

(was that too honest?)

(it was about homelessness.)

(ask god.)

(i have to go to bed.)

(there’s no limit to how long this will go on.)

(just ask me.)

(what?)

(i don’t know.)

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Heck of a soliloquy or internal dialogue, zing.
Some lines remind me of “Waiting for Godot.”
You are a minimalist.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Ruvy,

I don’t want to be dumping on you and adding on to other people’s comments, but I don’t find anything humorous about statements such as “Obama is a piece of shit.” And it has nothing to do with Obama, or anybody else for that matter, but indicates (to me) a quality of thinking.

So yes, I cannot relate to statements of that nature. You do understand that by saying such things you do foreclose the possibility of any discussion on the subject – there being only two choices for the respondent, either to agree with you or to walk away.

Roger

Clavos

Perhaps he’s just making a statement and is not interested in having a “discussion.”

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

Hi Irene,

What did YOU like about it?

I think it pretty accurately describes the historical dominant group that everyone else in the world has been having to struggle with for basic human rights and even survival of the very world. I think of it more loosely though, more like a culture than actual people. Which means that to me not all WASPs are MIWASPS. I also don’t think that other people are above causing trouble for their fellow humans. Just that this particular group seems to have dominated the entire planet and caused trouble for every lifeform on it.

For me–not to acknowledge that the dominant purveyors of misery on the planet have been MIWASPS would be to ignore the specific qualities of the culture they created. That means we couldn’t know what not to do when trying to repair all their damage. (not sure this is very clear)

That said, I love and support men. Men are some of the very best people I have met. (even white ones Men who are egalitarian and loving, I mean.

Irene Wagner

Cindy, not all IWASPS are MIWASPS. Some who share your (entirely appropriate) concern for human rights would put Madeleine Albrecht and Hilary Clinton in the IWASP category. (WIWASP’s? or WIWASA?)

The women from Albrecht and Clinton’s grandmas’ generation were “suffragettes”–or whatever the politically correct term for them is now. Point being, once representatives from a marginalized group becomes unmarginalized, even well below the “Secretary of State” level, their members are just as likely to continue their climb to the top on the backs of the rest of humanity as their former oppressors were.

..to ignore the specific qualities of the culture they created. That means we couldn’t know what not to do when trying to repair all their damage.

No Cindy, it isn’t clear. To “repair all the damage” do we 1)Emasculate everyone? 2)or inject them with uberdoses of Melanin? 3)Or make them stop speaking English? or…ooooh, I think I’m getting warmer…4)Make it to be illegal to be Protestant, or Catholic, or Buddhist for that matter? (You’ll want to consult a few MIAA’s–Kim Jong-il, for example–if you want expertise in THAT area.)

Cindy, I would contend that one way to promote human rights would be to stop pigeon-holing people– ANY people– into “bad” categories on the basis of race, gender, religion, or irreligion, if you’d like.

On the other hand, for me to insist that there hasn’t been any problem at all from my slice of the cultural pie would be to WAY off the mark, too. You might be heartened to learn, Cindy, that there are significant in that regard.

PS I love men, too. It’s impossible to get them to admit they’ve lost an argument though, isn’t it?

Point being, once representatives from a marginalized group becomes unmarginalized, even well below the “Secretary of State” level, their members are just as likely to continue their climb to the top on the backs of the rest of humanity as their former oppressors were.

Yes! And in this case their model is the MIWASP model. It’s that very reason I liked it.

It’s where women, once the more peaceful sex, are seen doing a thumbs up next to a corpse in a prison.

This is sort of why I tried to think of it as a culture rather than actual people, but maybe it’s more a model. The MIWASPMethod for getting ahead in the world.

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

Irene,

No Cindy, it isn’t clear. To “repair all the damage” do we 1)Emasculate everyone? 2)or inject them with uberdoses of Melanin? 3)Or make them stop speaking English? or…ooooh, I think I’m getting warmer…4)Make it to be illegal to be Protestant, or Catholic, or Buddhist for that matter?

It would be hard to emasculate Hillary Clinton. (I’m just guessing here.)

I think maybe the problem itself has something to do with power and wielding it over others. So, I couldn’t really advocate doing any of those things.

My guess is that one person at a time will have to change willingly (estimated arrival at loving, just world: 10,000 years). Meantime those who don’t want to be subject to abusive power and dominators will have to keep trying to secede from their version of reality and bring as many people with them as possible. (This is what I think today anyway.)

While you wait, Irene, please enjoy this quote by a very funny woman:

All men are not slimy warthogs. Some men are silly giraffes, some woebegone puppies, some insecure frogs. But if one is not careful, those slimy warthogs can ruin it for all the others. – Cynthia Heimel

Ma ® k

…their members are just as likely to continue their climb to the top on the backs of the rest of humanity as their former oppressors were.

Why is this? Maybe we (even atheists!) can identify causes of this pattern and change. The whole master/slave sadomasochist thing makes people nuts.

Maybe 10,000 years; maybe tomorrow…(or next week)

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

nice…

http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

But Dave! Fred Koch, founder of Koch Industries, co-founded JBS. You said the Kochs were…”Then as now, the Kochs were primarily interested in promoting freedom…”

Cindy, Fred Koch has been dead since 1967. All my dealings and experiences with the Kochs have been with his sons, primarily Charles and David, neither of whom has any involvement with the JBS.

Imagine Dave, being so absolutely depraved by greed and power that even with multiple billions of bucks, you’d spend your life trying to destroy your only brother to get ahead of him in the power game.

Cindy, there are FOUR Koch brothers. They had a falling out over how the business was being run and ended up reaching a settlement which let Fred Jr. and Bill go off and sail their yachts and hobnob with other wealthy folks while Charles and David ran the business.

So, CBS queries, is Bill telling the truth or is he lying to ruin his brother?

Bill Koch has sour grapes, in other words. What a shocker.

Dave nice people you admire. You should read this: Blood and Oil

My only direct experience of them has been their philanthropy. From that perspective where the money came from or how it was earned is largely irrelevant.

Dave

http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

And Cindy, why do you hate people who are successful? Why do you want to tear down those who have accomplished something in the world?

Dave

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

Cindy, there are FOUR Koch brothers.

So, four times the fun for them!

Dave, If Jack the Ripper were to give all his money to causes you liked, would you be able to say, “I only dealt with him as a philanthropist.” ???

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

Dave,

I am going to think about #100 and not be a smart aleck and give you a real answer. (Right after I go for a walk.)

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

Dave,

…why do you hate people who are successful? Why do you want to tear down those who have accomplished something in the world?

I guess it boils down to this:

I don’t believe people are innately capable of only self-interest. I think people are capable of cooperation too. I think the potential for either is there.

I don’t agree with the free market ideology because it starts with that premise–that self-interested is what we do best and therefore what is best to be. It gives people license to be self-serving at the expense of their fellow humans.

So, when we do things: raise children and educate them, design systems (economic or others) that help people realize their potential for self-interest rather than cooperation, we are destructive to life.

The people you call successful are the ones who perfect this model of self-interest. What they have accomplished is to take the world farther away from cooperation.

I’m sure you can’t see what I’m saying unless you remember what you thought when you were in college.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Self-interest, if not too narrowly defined, and cooperation are not necessarily mutually exclusive endeavors.

http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

Actually, I think they are inseparable.

http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

Perhaps he’s just making a statement and is not interested in having a “discussion.”

Pay attention to Clavos, Roger. He and I have butted horns before – and have had discussions before. He knows me a lot better than you do.

http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

Well, Ruvy. I am well aware you’re making a statement. But how does that change anything?